Figure 7 - uploaded by Seerp Wigboldus
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
Discussion paper prepared for the CGIAR Research Program on Integrated Systems for the Humid Tropics.
Citations
... A recently developed framework that supports this is scaling readiness. It encompasses both evaluative measures that assess the readiness and use of an innovation or innovation package (Sartas et al., 2020) and methodologies or processes that result in adoption, niche and regime change, and have implications for legitimacy both in terms of scaling out and scaling up (Wigboldus and Leeuwis, 2013). Alternatively put, scaling readiness provides innovation brokers with a framework for understanding, visualizing, and strategizing around the maturity of core innovations, and the many accompanying innovations needed for its success. ...
As agricultural scientists rapidly develop and deploy novel continuous living cover (CLC) crops and cropping systems such as perennial grains, a growing number of intermediaries are engaged in advancing the commercialization, adoption, and scaling of these novel CLC crops. However, these commercialization practitioners lack a conceptual and practical roadmap to help them achieve success. Through key concept review and practice narratives, this article presents the firsthand experience of primarily non-academic staff at several key public and nonprofit agricultural innovation platforms between 2019 and 2022 that have held core institutional responsibilities for facilitating the commercialization, adoption, and scaling of Kernza ® perennial grain, North America’s first commercially-viable perennial grain crop. Reviews of key concepts identified as relevant to the practice of commercializing novel continuous living cover crops are interwoven with practice narratives of the Kernza commercialization process through the lens of each concept, demonstrating the ways in which these concepts translate to specific activities, methods, and strategies, also noting remaining gaps, limitations, and areas for growth and learning. This narrative can move the growing community of CLC intermediaries and innovation brokers toward a ‘practical theory’ of CLC commercialization that lies at the intersection of technology transfer and adoption, innovation, and agri-food systems change processes. Such conceptual orientation and practical guidance stands to improve the efficacy of novel CLC crop commercialization intermediaries, accelerate wider efforts of agricultural innovation platforms to rapidly advance CLC agriculture, and provide fertile ground for further applied research.
... Thus, it has been argued that sociotechnical systems in waste management systems include not only technological dimensions but also far-reaching dimensions, such as cultural dimensions, consumer practices, markets, supply chains, regulations, and infrastructural dimensions, among others (see [23,40,41]). See the illustration in Figure 2. In Figure 2, sociocultural factors are dominant across the three levels, which [42] characterized as follows: landscape (worldviews, paradigms, culture, and politics), regime (interacting institutional processes), and niche (domain of novelties). Therefore, the sociocultural dimension in this RER is defined as the influence of cultural and demographic characteristics, which include education, knowledge, religion, beliefs, laws, advocacy, governments, demographics, social classes, gender, lifestyles, behavior, and a itudes as well as individual, group, and community values and the indigenous approach to SWM practices in Nigeria. ...
... Therefore, this study implemented an RER of qualitative and quantitative academic literature published between 1986 and 2022 generated from Scopus, Business Source Elite (EBSCO), EBSCOhost Academic Search Premier, and SocINDEX databases via UEF Primo (a search engine for printed and electronic materials at the University of Eastern Finland Library) for evidence of multiple disciplines and sociocultural focus on Nigeria's SWM practices. The following research questions guided the RER: In other words, quantitative and qualitative peer-reviewed studies focusing on Nigeria's SWM system could provide evidence of interdisciplinarity, or transdisciplinary and In Figure 2, sociocultural factors are dominant across the three levels, which [42] characterized as follows: landscape (worldviews, paradigms, culture, and politics), regime (interacting institutional processes), and niche (domain of novelties). Therefore, the sociocultural dimension in this RER is defined as the influence of cultural and demographic characteristics, which include education, knowledge, religion, beliefs, laws, advocacy, governments, demographics, social classes, gender, lifestyles, behavior, and attitudes as well as individual, group, and community values and the indigenous approach to SWM practices in Nigeria. ...
... An adapted form of Wigboldus et al.'s (2001) multi-level perspective[42]. ...
Against the background of an arguable dearth of scholarship on the sociocultural dimensions of Nigeria’s solid waste management strategies and practices, this rapid review searched for evidence in the literature. A rapid evidence review and qualitative meta-summary procedure were implemented to utilize the rigor of systematic literature review that met the timelines and limited funding available for this study. It is more appropriate to identify, extract, and synthesize a mixture of qualitative and/or quantitative empirical evidence in the literature. This rapid review found little substantive evidence of scholarly sociocultural approaches in Nigeria’s solid waste management. It also discovered constant factors of inadequate and weak multidisciplinary or non-holistic approaches to driving innovation and effective social impact in Nigeria’s solid waste management practices. The results were interpreted vis-à-vis the need to leverage the social sciences, particularly the range and scope of social work practice configurations and possibilities, to scientifically advance and substantially accelerate the implementation of evidence-based policy and practice in Nigeria’s solid waste management system. This rapid review concluded that the negative results are due to the insufficient conceptual and theoretical bases for Nigeria’s solid waste management strategies and/or practices.
... The concept of scaling up is the least clearly defined (Gündel et al., 2001;Frake and Messina, 2018), as illustrated by the variety of orthographical forms used, such as "scaling up" (Anderson, 2012), "scaling-up" (Nost, 2014), "scale-up" or "up-scaling" (Petrovics and Giezen, 2021). In addition, while scaling up is often used in research titles, many of these studies, in reality, deal with scaling out (Wigboldus and Leeuwis, 2013). The term is also used to describe different concepts, such as dissemination, to cover everyone who needs the product or innovation offered by an organization (Wesley et al., 2019). ...
The question of how small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the agri-food sector successfully develop and grow their business is a matter of high practical and theoretical relevance. The current paper conducts a systematic literature review focused on two key objectives. First, it explores the conceptual underpinning and evolution of the scaling concept by analyzing relevant conceptual and empirical journal articles. Second, the paper identifies and systematizes the key scaling strategies, drivers and mechanisms implemented by agri-food SMEs by reviewing published business case studies. The study’s findings reveal that agri-food SMEs primarily utilize vertical scaling up, which is achieved through establishing partnership relations, collaboration and integration mechanisms. Horizontal scaling out is another frequently used strategy accomplished via market demand stimulation, product diversification and geographic expansion. In contrast, scaling deep is the least frequently used strategy, which is achieved through transformative learning and cultural mechanisms. Overall, the results contribute to the literature on scaling agri-food SMEs by providing a comprehensive overview and classification of the key strategies, drivers and mechanisms used by agri-food SMEs.
... Despite the fact that several approaches fostering multi-actor learning and co-innovation have been developed and implemented (cf. Cerf et al. 2000;Fieldsend et al. 2021), it still seems difficult to find a robust and generic model proven to be effectively scaled up and out (Wigboldus & Leeuwis 2013). According to Macken-Walsh (2019), the context dependency and distinctly relational aspects of multi-actor approaches are responsible for the lack of successful and uniform implementation models. ...
The background of this thesis is new directions in international and national politics, the challenges of contemporary innovation systems, and the challenges and potentials in Swedish horticulture. The aim is to investigate how the knowledge and innovation system in Swedish horticulture can be reinforced to meet current and future challenges. The research questions focus on how network facilitation, social learning, and impact orientation can contribute to a reinforced knowledge and innovation system. The frame of reference takes in theories of systems of innovation, and, in particular, agricultural knowledge and innovation systems (AKIS). The thesis is also complemented with theories of social processes related to learning and impact. The methods include qualitative case studies in a progression from traditional qualitative research methods towards an action research approach. The results identified processes of network brokering, dialogue, co-agency and inclusion as central to reinforcing the knowledge and innovation system of Swedish horticulture. The findings point to a need to balance a structural interpretation of the horticultural knowledge and innovation system with a process perspective, to actively invite the agency of engaged and entrepreneurial individuals, and to balance the historical ‘supply side innovation’ perspective with a prioritization on the creation of societal impact. These results provide a contribution to the debate around different systems perspectives of the AKIS. They also highlight how changes in everyday work at the micro-level are a precondition for system level change, and how actions at the micro-level have the potential of improving the ability to meet current and future challenges and contribute to societal impact and change.
... Second, it is critical to not just look at capacity for scaling innovations as an end in itself, but to look at the potential for the scaling of the innovation contribute to sustainable development. This involves activating a perspective on responsible innovation and responsible scaling of innovations (McNaghten et al., 2014;Stilgoe et al., 2013;Wigboldus and Leeuwis 2013;Wigboldus et al., 2016) and strongly hinges on abilities to anticipate implications of envisaged scaling processes and ambitions from early on (cf. Ghiron et al., 2014;Potter & de Wolf, 2014). ...
Finding out how to scale innovations successfully is high on the agendas of researchers, practitioners and policy makers involved in agricultural development. New approaches and methodologies seek to better address related complexities, but none of them include a systematic perspective on the role of capacity in (partnerships for) scaling innovations. We posit that this has left an important topic insufficiently addressed in relation to partnerships for scaling innovations. The need to address this gap became apparent in the context of the CGIAR Roots, Tubers, and Bananas (RTB) Scaling Fund initiative. This paper presents how we explored ways forward in relation to this by combining three methodological approaches: The Five-Capabilities, Scaling Readiness, and the Multi-Level Perspective on socio-technical innovation. This combined approach—dubbed Capacity for Scaling Innovations (C4SI)—was applied in three projects related to scaling innovations for sweet potato, cassava and banana, involving five countries in Africa. It then discusses implications for a partners-in-scaling perspective, the contribution of scaling innovations to sustainable development, the importance of research organisations considering their own capabilities in partnerships for scaling, and the extent to which C4SI was helpful in the three cases—for example, in decision making. The paper concludes that a capacity perspective on the scaling of innovations should be an essential part of a ‘science of scaling’. Finally, it provides recommendations for using the approach or parts of it in research and intervention practice for scaling, pointing in particular to the need for context-specific adaptation.
... The concept of scaling has moved beyond technology adoption (first wave) [44][45][46] and the scaling of innovation (second wave) [27,47]. The work set out in [48] defines scaling up as "expanding, adapting, and sustaining successful policies, programs, and projects in different places and overtime to reach a greater number of people". ...
... This broader definition is more outcome-oriented and emphasises sustainability, which the authors of [11] describe as a third wave in scaling. In their submission, moving forward, efforts towards scaling should focus on (a) understanding the factors, conditions, and dynamics affecting the innovation and scaling processes in a more realistic environment, a point earlier raised by Wigboldus and Leeuwis, (2013), who noted a lack of/poor consideration of environmental impacts on scaling CSA innovations; (b) grounding scaling based on evidence by developing and testing new approaches, concepts, and tools; (c) moulding a conducive environment for scaling innovations, focusing on institutions, partnerships, and monitoring and learning. This next phase must acknowledge the complexity and dynamic nature of scaling processes, given the multi-dimensional and multi-objective nature of the process, and the aspirations of broader stakeholders that are often involved in the process [30,49]. ...
... Responsible scaling [27], especially when looking at the long-term impact, is an important consideration to avoid the potential negative social and environmental impacts [45]. In CS4, farmers used dangerous pesticides during the scaling process, which was therefore unstainable. ...
Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) responds in order to sustain agriculture under a changing environment, and is a major priority in the development sphere. However, to achieve impact at scale, CSA innovations must address agricultural systems’ context-specific and multi-dimensional nature and be purveyed through feasible scaling processes. Unfortunately, knowledge on the scaling of CSA innovations under smallholder farming systems and in the context of developing countries remains scant. Understanding scaling processes is essential to the design of a sustainable scaling strategy. This study aimed to draw lessons on scaling from 25 cases of scaling CSA, and related projects in Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania implemented by public institutions, local and international research organisations, Non-Govermental Orginsations(NGOs), and community-based organisations. Generally, scaling follows a linear pathway comprising technology testing and scaling. Most cases promoted technologies and models geared towards climate change adaptation in crop-based value chains, and only a few cases incorporated mitigation measures. Efforts to engage the private sector involved building business models as a potential scaling pathway. The cases were very strong on capacity building and institutionalisation from local, national, and even regional levels. However, four critical areas of concern about the sustainability of scaling emerged from the study: (i) There is little understanding and capture of the dynamics of smallholder farming systems in scaling strategies; (ii) climate data, projections, and impact models are rarely applied to support the decision of scaling; (iii) considerations for the biophysical and spatial-temporal impacts and trade-offs analysis in scaling is minimal and just starting to emerge; and (iv) there are still challenges effecting systemic change to enable sustainable scaling. In response to these concerns, we propose investment in understanding and considering the dynamics of the smallholder farming system and how it affects adoption, and subsequently scaling. Programme design should incorporate climate change scenarios. Scaling programmes can maximise synergies and leverage resources by adopting a robust partnerships model. Furthermore, understanding the spatio-temporal impact of scaling CSA on ecological functioning deserves more attention. Lastly, scaling takes time, which needs to be factored into the design of programmes.
... Scaling out is horizontal, focusing on the geographical spread of successful technologies and knowledge to additional people and communities, with the same stakeholder group. It is associated with quantitative processes like replication, expansion, extension, adoption, dissemination, transfer of technology, mainstreaming, rollout, and multiplication (Wigboldus and Leeuwis, 2013). Scaling up adds a vertical dimension, whereby the successful technologies and knowledge are disseminated beyond the original intervention area with the involvement of additional stakeholders and institutions at different levels (e.g., from village to county, district, region, and national levels). ...
... Scaling up adds a vertical dimension, whereby the successful technologies and knowledge are disseminated beyond the original intervention area with the involvement of additional stakeholders and institutions at different levels (e.g., from village to county, district, region, and national levels). Thus, scaling up is associated with qualitative processes like transition, institutionalization, transformation, integration, incorporation, and development (Wigboldus and Leeuwis, 2013). The third dimension of scaling deep deals with the notion that durable change is achieved only "when peoples' hearts and minds, their values and cultural practices and the quality of relationships they have are transformed" (Moore et al., 2015). ...
... In these more decentralized systems, there is greater knowledge exchange, incubation for innovation, and community adoption of innovationand increased functional capacities, such as diversified leadership and local mobilization (Hermans et al., 2017). These diverse coalitions with appropriate network actors can increase the likelihood of a successful scaling activity (Wigboldus & Leeuwis, 2013). In Ethiopia, de Roo et al. (2019) found that income disparity between farmers was exacerbated by two malt barley interventions that required access to certain technology. ...
Of the world’s 570 million farmers, 72% work on two hectares or less, and women’s labor comprises at least 50% (FAO, 2014). Small farms are responsible for 80% of world food production, making them key to addressing looming global food shortages (Lowder et al., 2016). Small farms in developing countries navigate a myriad of challenges, including access to information, quality inputs, capital, markets, and among others, land (FAO, 2014). These challenges can be exacerbated for women and other marginalized groups of people due to social normatives within their communities (Petesch, Badstue, & Prain, 2018; Polar et al., 2017; Rola‐Rubzen et al., 2020). Inclusive innovation to address agriculture productivity and loss gaps is tantamount to equitable global food security (FAO, 2014; FAO, 2011). However, many innovations still fail to help stimulate disruption in gender or social inequities, and some even do additional harm. Increasing use of an innovation, referred to as ‘scaling,' is critical to impact at a community or regional level, and is often seen as necessary to support Agriculture Research for Development (AR4D) outcomes (Sartas et al., 2020). Several scaling support tools and methodologies have been developed to assist researchers and practitioners in scaling processes. However, little practical attention has been given to the specific cross-section of gender and relevant diversity within scaling tools and methodologies.
This narrative literature review begins to address this by answering: 1) What are unique gender considerations when scaling agricultural innovations?; and 2) What are appropriate methods and approaches for collecting data on these unique gender considerations? Our review finds six points of attention to reflect upon unique gender considerations when innovating and scaling innovation: i) Comprising research and project teams, ii) Designing agricultural innovations, iii) Communicating and extension of innovation, iv) Choosing scale models: entrepreneurship and business development, v) Reinventing and changing technology, and vi) Engaging with the political economy of innovation. Methods to collect necessary data to accurately reflect on these considerations and avoid unintended negative consequences for more gender responsible scaling are also presented. Finally, the literature review is situated in a perspective that more attention should be given to agricultural innovation and scaling support tools and methodologies to address gender or socially marginalized groups.
... The research programme approach continues to be guided by accepted wisdoms such as Chambers' (Chambers, 1983) request to "reverse" thinking in development, research and associated approaches, based on a key principle that the research process itself creates opportunities for change when done in collaboration (Cameron and Gibson, 2005;Cameron et al., 2014). Increasingly, the literature on scaling agricultural innovation frames the opportunity for impact through this way of working (e.g., Wigboldus and Leeuwis, 2013;Wigboldus et al., 2016;Shilomboleni and De Plaen, 2019). ...
High-quality research to provide sustainable development solutions in aquatic food systems requires a deliberate theory for its application at scale. One frequently defined pathway in theories of change for scaling research innovation is through partnerships. Yet, despite the widespread application of partnership modalities in food-systems research, only a small proportion of published research provides original and high-quality solutions for small-scale producers. Metrics of academic success can incentivize publication regardless of end-user impact. Analogously, partnerships among national and international institutions can also lack impact because of inequity and persistent power imbalances. We describe a long-term research for development partnership between a CGIAR center (WorldFish) and a national government agency (Solomon Islands Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources; MFMR). We review the literature produced by, or about, the activities carried out in the name of the partnership over a 35-year period to build a time-line and to identify elements of research power, priorities and capacity by decade. The form and function of the collaboration through time form the basis of our analysis of the journey toward an increasingly equitable partnership: a theorized goal toward greater development outcome at scale in Solomon Islands. The partnership has been strongly influenced by changes in both institutions. The MFMR has undergone a significant increase in operational capacity since the partnership was first conceived in 1986. WorldFish has also undergone change and has navigated tensions between being locally impactful and globally relevant through periods of different research foci. With an increasingly competent and capable ministry, dimensions of power and practice have had to be re-visited to embed CGIAR research on aquatic food systems within national development trajectories. By focusing on a practice seeking more meaningful and respectful partnerships, WorldFish-as an international research partner-continues to evolve to be fit for purpose as a credible and effective research partner. We discuss this journey in the context of system-level change for aquatic food system sustainability and innovation.
... We approach this review with the premise that the widespread uptake of any technology entails a complex reconfiguration of social and technical components [9,10]. There is a historical context that framed how the technology was developed. ...
Vietnam is supportive of the transition to sustainable rice production in the Mekong Delta. The national program promoted best management practices for rice production through “1 Must Do and 5 Reductions” (1M5R). This review traces the technological development and uptake of 1M5R in national policies and by end-users. We highlight the outcomes from various policy-supported initiatives and unpack plausible pathways that generated the widespread adoption of 1M5R in eight provinces in the Mekong River Delta: at least 104,448 smallholder rice farmers were reached, and 1M5R practices adopted on 113,870 hectares. The scaling of 1M5R was enabled through a convergence of different socio-technical systems with varied foci, including sustainability certification, contract farming, consolidation of production, and improved use of inputs, aside from the development of sustainable technologies. In addition, 1M5R was promoted with incentives generated by a World Bank project and other initiatives in line with a national policy of increasing the quality of rice production for national and international markets. The interconnections of varied socio-technical systems, enacted by different intermediaries, catalyzed the spread of 1M5R. The widespread adoption by smallholder farmers increased their profits and raised awareness across diverse stakeholder groups of the higher marketability of rice produced with sustainable practices.
